So basically, you seem to be saying, to outgrow someone, is to disagree with, or choose a way of life different to the other person.
Do you consider that a natural unguided process, or a guided process - choice?
That is a good question and one that I would tend to think is an unguided process. In fact I think most thinks are unguided, but have the illusion of being guided.
This is exactly the case... without the guessing.
Therefore, from that perspective, it is not reasonable to call this hate... unless of course, you mean hatred of what is bad, because that is how it is with this king (according to scripture). He does hate what is bad, and removes it from his domain. So anyone who wants to promote, and practice what is unclean, must go... no question.
The question is not whether God can decide the rules or not. Its whether the are morally right or not, based on our judgement.
Just because he don't like something and claim to right about it, doesn't mean that he is. Especially when you have lots of people (Especially atheists) disagreeing with it being so.
Since that is the case, clearly it is possible to adresse these claims in a constructive way by putting them up for debate. Even if one look at the laws found in most countries, we have made rules that support the idea, that one is not allowed to kill homosexsuals due to what God think is morally right.
How is that?
Why are there not millions and millions of Christians on the street protesting and demanding that this should be changed, if its clearly the moral right thing to do?
Do you want to restate it, by removing random people?
No, why should I? Its the same on both sides.
What do you mean by "somehow by some unexplained reason"? Can you give an example?
Do you mean a sudden earthquake occurs; a swarm of FBI agents suddenly swoop into the neighborhood, and order residents to stay put; a sudden downpour of rain... etc... etc.. ?
Please tell me. Do you think free will means unlimited?
I mean that free will have to work in accordance to physical laws. When the US dropped the atom bomb on Nagasaki for instant a person standing right where the bomb felt would have no chance of surviving. If such person however did survive a direct hit from such bomb, I would consider it an unexplained reason.
The mere fact, that the forces released from such blast would instantly kill them, as their body wouldn't be able to withstand it, would make it a miracle or intervention by something.
A man that thinks he should go up, rather than down, when he jumps off a cliff without a jet pack, is just being ridiculously arrogant, isn't he? ...and asking for gravity to cease to exist... because he wants to be unlimited.
But that is not the case, because it is perfectly explainable why this person is going down rather than up. That is why one have to work within the limits of physical laws.
If God stops a person from carrying out an act he doesn't want taking place, he has demonstrated that he alone is all powerful, while the person has limits, and is really not as big as he thinks.
That person should learn something - free will does not mean ultimate, or unlimited. He should humble himself, just as gravity makes him humble.
If God stops someone from doing something, then one can not argue that there is any such thing as free will. Or at least it would be completely meaningless as you would have no clue when and when not God would choose to interfere.
The point is, you apparently are conflating free will with unlimited freedom. They are not the same.
No, im clearly not. If that were the case, I would have used examples with people shooting beams out of their eyes etc.
Does the fact that you have to (a necessity) eat, drink, dedicate, urinate, and sleep, mean that you do not have free will?
If your answer is yes, then we do not have free will, according to your understand of it.
Im far from certain that we do have free will. But that is besides the point, because im not the one claiming we have free will. The bible claims that we have, because God told us so. (Hope you see the irony in that)
For instant, we do not choose what we like or what we don't like when it comes to flavours. No one have ever chosen that they like strawberries more than bananas. In fact most things we choose to do in life, is based on passed experiences rather than freely choosing what to do.
Let's suppose you did see someone fall into hot lava, and they emerged without a mark, would you rub your eyes, and turn to the person next to you, and ask, "Did you see that?"
What if they all did, what natural explanation would you suggest? I have a hunch that would not change your mind about the supernatural.
First of all I would be extremely surprised. Next I would question it, maybe they are wearing some new high protective suit that im not aware of. And to me that is the big difference, I would not just jump to the conclusion that it must be supernatural, but rather I would look for explanations.
Secondly, I would make sure that people I trust could also witness it and get their opinion as well. If it turned out that these people could in fact jump in and out of hot lava, then I would have no issue changing m mind.
No. It does not interfere with free will. You agreed that the outcome does not determine free will.
I don't understand why you agree and yet don't agree.
Also, I'm not sure you grasped the explanation about prophecy.
Nonetheless, if God intervened to protect the life of someone, as he did, it does not have anything to do with free will. See the explanation above.
It depends on the situation. So obviously in some cases he would interfere with someone's free will.
You evidently don't understand. It was not already decided. Where did you read that?
Well that is basically the idea of a prophecy isn't it?
If it weren't, what is the difference between a guess and prophecy?
